Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Shadowy Man]

Faith.

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs

3. Christianitytrust in God and in his actions and promises

4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

FAITH definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

FAITH definition: If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

Game. Set. Match.

Clearly the dictionary was written by lying atheists.

 

[Shadowy Man]

...and know some science.

Ten-year-olds know some science too.

this explains a lot about your comments about scientists

 

[pood]

Faith.

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs

3. Christianitytrust in God and in his actions and promises

4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

FAITH definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

FAITH definition: If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

This.

Unknown Soldier is equivocating on the meaning of faith.

The word “faith,” like all words, has multiple shades of meaning. Dictionaries will list the primary meaning first, and then the subsidiary meanings. I‘m sure I could look for another dictionary and come up with a subsidiary meaning like, “having strong confidence or trust in a conclusion.”

But that would be the colloquial, informal definition of faith. So, yeah, using this subsidiary definition, a climatolgist might say something like, “I have faith in my findings that warming is worsening.” Just as I might say, expressing self-confidence, “I have faith in my abilities,” or I might say, to encourage a friend, “I know you can do it. I have faith in you.”

But these are the informal and colloquial meanings of “faith.” The primary, religious meaning is just what the bible says: faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith ITSELF is the evidence. That’s not how non-religious reasoning works.

I will say again the Unknown Soldier igonores the mystical roots of Christianity, which actually celebrtate not paying attention to evidence or logic. Why he does this is unknown. As I‘ve said, I think he, and not us, misrepresents what theists believe and how they arrive at their conclusions and justify them.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier

It is dead now there use to be a steady stream of theists passing through the forum posting on relgion and science. I lred most of their arguments and reasoning.

Years back theists on the form theists argued:

Science has faith in things unseen like particles. Evolution is a theory, and so on.
Religious have faith in things unseen.
Therefore religious beliefs are as credible as scientific theories.

I had already thought through your argument years back.

You quoted Dawkins. From his early works I seriously doubt he would think religion and science are equally valid. I suspect you quoted him out of a context.

You are unable to defend your thesis. You seem to have thought you were being clever with an OP that would poke a stick in our eyes, and you got a bloody nose.

You are not debating,. Yes we can get aggressive with theists on the forum, but then to Christians us atheists are generally the evil spawn of Satan.

Theists who came on the forum in the past came well prepared for debate, unlike yourself.

You can get as aggressive as you please bounded by the TOU. I doubt you are going to rattle any of us.

I have gotten some new perspectives on science vs religion from the debate. I have listend to ideas from others. If youhave not pondered any of what has been said then why are you here?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Faith.

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs

3. Christianitytrust in God and in his actions and promises

4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

FAITH definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

FAITH definition: If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

OK, is that the absolute, universal definition of faith from a dictionary you believe to be inerrant?

Anyway, it might behoove you to look up the word "relevant" in a dictionary. Once you've done so, ask yourself if posting definitions of the word "faith" is a means by which you can defend atheists from the charge of deliberately saying that religious people understand faith in a way they don't. (Hint: Misrepresenting how somebody defines faith is not the same as proving their definition of faith is wrong.)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Faith.

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs

3. Christianitytrust in God and in his actions and promises

4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

FAITH definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

FAITH definition: If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

This.

Unknown Soldier is equivocating on the meaning of faith.

The word “faith,” like all words, has multiple shades of meaning. Dictionaries will list the primary meaning first, and then the subsidiary meanings. I‘m sure I could look for another dictionary and come up with a subsidiary meaning like, “having strong confidence or trust in a conclusion.”

But that would be the colloquial, informal definition of faith. So, yeah, using this subsidiary definition, a climatolgist might say something like, “I have faith in my findings that warming is worsening.” Just as I might say, expressing self-confidence, “I have faith in my abilities,” or I might say, to encourage a friend, “I know you can do it. I have faith in you.”

But these are the informal and colloquial meanings of “faith.” The primary, religious meaning is just what the bible says: faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith ITSELF is the evidence. That’s not how non-religious reasoning works.

I will say again the Unknown Soldier igonores the mystical roots of Christianity, which actually celebrtate not paying attention to evidence or logic. Why he does this is unknown. As I‘ve said, I think he, and not us, misrepresents what theists believe and how they arrive at their conclusions and justify them.

Another word you should look up is "equivocate." Once you understand what it means, try to find an instance of equivocation on my part and post a direct quotation along with a link to the original post that statement appears in.

I'd advise everybody here to not hold your breaths waiting for that evidence. Is it not ironic that those atheists allege that theists believe without evidence, and there isn't any evidence for that allegation?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Faith.

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs

3. Christianitytrust in God and in his actions and promises

4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

FAITH definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

FAITH definition: If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

OK, is that the absolute, universal definition of faith from a dictionary you believe to be inerrant?

Anyway, it might behoove you to look up the word "relevant" in a dictionary. Once you've done so, ask yourself if posting definitions of the word "faith" is a means by which you can defend atheists from the charge of deliberately saying that religious people understand faith in a way they don't. (Hint: Misrepresenting how somebody defines faith is not the same as proving their definition of faith is wrong.)

Dictionaries don't *prescribe* definitions they *describe* definitions. Therefore, the dictionary is stating how the word is used. The reason there are multiple definitions is because the word is used in multiple ways depending on context.

I can only assume you are being purposely obtuse or argumentative by asking if we think the dictionary provides a "absolute, universal" and "inerrant" definition. That's now how language works and I assume you know that.

If atheists say that "faith" means something that the dictionary also agrees is a common usage of the word then they are not necessarily misrepresenting the definition. Unless the claim is that the dictionary is written by atheists attempting to inflict their preferred definitions on the dictionary-reading public and not written by neutral parties recording how words are being used.

 

[pood]

Faith.

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs

3. Christianitytrust in God and in his actions and promises

4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

FAITH definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

FAITH definition: If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

This.

Unknown Soldier is equivocating on the meaning of faith.

The word “faith,” like all words, has multiple shades of meaning. Dictionaries will list the primary meaning first, and then the subsidiary meanings. I‘m sure I could look for another dictionary and come up with a subsidiary meaning like, “having strong confidence or trust in a conclusion.”

But that would be the colloquial, informal definition of faith. So, yeah, using this subsidiary definition, a climatolgist might say something like, “I have faith in my findings that warming is worsening.” Just as I might say, expressing self-confidence, “I have faith in my abilities,” or I might say, to encourage a friend, “I know you can do it. I have faith in you.”

But these are the informal and colloquial meanings of “faith.” The primary, religious meaning is just what the bible says: faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith ITSELF is the evidence. That’s not how non-religious reasoning works.

I will say again the Unknown Soldier igonores the mystical roots of Christianity, which actually celebrtate not paying attention to evidence or logic. Why he does this is unknown. As I‘ve said, I think he, and not us, misrepresents what theists believe and how they arrive at their conclusions and justify them.

Another word you should look up is "equivocate."

I suggest you look it up. Equivocation is exactly what you‘re doing. Otherwise it makes no sense to suggest that scientists use “faith” in supporting their conclusions, a claim that you make.

Questions that you haven’t answered, or, if you have, I‘ve missed the relevant posts.

1. Why don’t you acknowledge the role of mysticism in religious belief?

2. What kind of scientific survey did youy conduct to support your claims about how theists define faith, and how atheists allegedly disrtort what theists believe?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why don’t you acknowledge the role of mysticism in religious belief?

That would destroy his argument.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier is making what amounts to a theist argument.

Golly, is he a closet theist? He has pitted himself against atheists, I wonder if he believes in spirits, ghosts, and so on . That could explain his trying to prove theist beliefs are evdicnce based and logical.

 

[Learner]

Just a little mention. I've talked to atheists who swear they've seen ghost-like apparitions and one hearing things go slam being alone in a house, and as far as they can sensibly reason from their senses... they insist this wasn't their imagination. They wouldn't call their experience to be supernatural of any sort but they do believe there is a 'natural explanation' for the experience even though they couldn't explain it.

 

[steve_bank]

As has been repeated by a number of people before.

Atheist is a statement of what is not believed. One can be atheist and be anything but a theist, but there can be shades of what somebody means by being an atheist. There are weak and stromg atheists. Agnostic atheist.

Like Christian, the word atheist has no real specific meaning. Soldiers major error was referring to atheists as a kind of monolithic group.

In the 90s the Brits did a poll on beliefs. One comclsuin was asking if someone belived in god was pointless because of the variety of responses.

One can be atheist ad reject a god, but belevee in a cosmic guiding spirit or force. A higher power.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Another word you should look up is "equivocate."

I suggest you look it up. Equivocation is exactly what you‘re doing. Otherwise it makes no sense to suggest that scientists use “faith” in supporting their conclusions, a claim that you make.

I know what equivocation means. It means to use different meanings of a word without explaining the word is being used with different meaning(s). For example:

Billy hasn't taken a shower for a week and smells.
Kathy smells Billy.
Therefore, both Billy and Kathy smell.

You have the burden to prove I equivocated, and saying that I said something doesn't count as good evidence.

Questions that you haven’t answered, or, if you have, I‘ve missed the relevant posts.

1. Why don’t you acknowledge the role of mysticism in religious belief?

That's an irrelevant question.

2. What kind of scientific survey did youy conduct to support your claims about how theists define faith, and how atheists allegedly disrtort what theists believe?

That's a loaded question.

 

[pood]

Another word you should look up is "equivocate."

I suggest you look it up. Equivocation is exactly what you‘re doing. Otherwise it makes no sense to suggest that scientists use “faith” in supporting their conclusions, a claim that you make.

I know what equivocation means. It means to use different meanings of a word without explaining the word is being used with different meaning(s). For example:

Billy hasn't taken a shower for a week and smells.
Kathy smells Billy.
Therefore, both Billy and Kathy smell.

You have the burden to prove I equivocated, and saying that I said something doesn't count as good evidence.

I already did that.

Questions that you haven’t answered, or, if you have, I‘ve missed the relevant posts.

1. Why don’t you acknowledge the role of mysticism in religious belief?

That's an irrelevant question.

Saying so doesn’t make it so. It’s relevant because there is a strong tradition of mysticism in Christianity and other religions, which regards questions of evidence and reason in supporting their conclusions the true irrelevancy. Yet you ignore this tradition, which seriously undermines your own claims. If a lot of religioin involves mysticism, and it does, then it can’t be that those of the mystical tradition are interested in your ideas of evidence and logic.

2. What kind of scientific survey did youy conduct to support your claims about how theists define faith, and how atheists allegedly disrtort what theists believe?

That's a loaded question.

Right. You didn’t study this at all, just decided to spout your uninformed opinions.

 

[steve_bank]

Posting it for the second time

Equivocation
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.
"I say this without equivocation"

Related terms

Prevaricate and its synonyms lie and equivocate all refer to playing fast and loose with the truth. Lie is the bluntest of the three. When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying that person was intentionally dishonest, no bones about it. Prevaricate is less accusatory and softens the bluntness of lie, usually implying that someone is evading the truth rather than purposely making false statements. Equivocate is similar to prevaricate, but it generally implies that someone is deliberately using words that have more than one meaning as a way to conceal the truth.

The political pivot, a way to avoid answering a diffcukt quetion.

O'Donnell is an expert on "the pivot."

If you have watched a debate, you have watched a pivot. "The pivot is a way of taking a question that might be on a specific subject, and moving to answer it on your own terms," O'Donnell says.

In debate politicians routinely equivocate, prevaricate, and pivot to avoid saying something they can be held to.

Soldier's techniques are not exactly transparent.

Soldier's refusal to say yes or no as to wheher science theories and religious beliefs like creationism are equally valid conclusions is equivocation.

Provding alternate meanings for equivocation as a way to pivot, switch argument to etymology and linguistics, is what I call grasping at straws in the middle of wind storm.

 

[pood]

In debate politicians routinely equivocate, prevaricate, and pivot to avoid saying something they can be held to.

Soldier's techniques are not exactly transparent.

Soldier's refusal to say yes or no as to wheher science theories and religious beliefs like creationism are equally valid conclusions is equivocation.

Provding alternate meanings for equivocation as a way to pivot, switch argument to etymology and linguistics, is what I call grasping at straws in the middle of wind storm.

Right, he has been doing this all along. See his non-replies to my two questions just above, plus denying without elaboration his obvious equivocation on the meaning of the word “faith.” Makes discussion with him pointless, like trying to nail a blob of mercury to a wall.

 

[DBT]

Faith.

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs

3. Christianitytrust in God and in his actions and promises

4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

FAITH definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

FAITH definition: If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

OK, is that the absolute, universal definition of faith from a dictionary you believe to be inerrant?

Anyway, it might behoove you to look up the word "relevant" in a dictionary. Once you've done so, ask yourself if posting definitions of the word "faith" is a means by which you can defend atheists from the charge of deliberately saying that religious people understand faith in a way they don't. (Hint: Misrepresenting how somebody defines faith is not the same as proving their definition of faith is wrong.)

Nobody said absolute. Just that this is the definition of faith in relation to beliefs held without the support of evidence.

People do in fact hold beliefs without the support of evidence, God gods, angels demons, etc, and we call this form of belief 'faith.'

It's not hard to grasp.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Faith tells me I have food in the fridge. Faith tells me I can eat it because faith tells me I know it is there. Faith tells me I made the food yesterday. Faith tells me I purchased food several days ago. Faith tells me I can heat it in the microwave or prepare it in the oven. Faith tells me I have an oven and a microwave in the kitchen. Faith tells me my house has a kitchen. Faith tells me faith is wonderful and without my faith I would not know anything, not even about faith. I have faith in faith.

 

[Learner]

As has been repeated by a number of people before.

Atheist is a statement of what is not believed. One can be atheist and be anything but a theist, but there can be shades of what somebody means by being an atheist. There are weak and stromg atheists. Agnostic atheist.

Yes and of course we could just simply clarify as to which shade of atheist the discussion applies to in context.

Like Christian, the word atheist has no real specific meaning. Soldiers major error was referring to atheists as a kind of monolithic group.

Christians are often mentioned 'likewise in the same manner', described as a monolithic group. A formality in terms of when using a name to identify a whole group of believers. Depending on the specifics and the point ones making. People have to make it clear to whom of the group, the point you're making is refering to.

As you say about the shades of atheists there are, out there (like Christians)...

...the OP definitely doesn't say "all" atheists 'get the idea of faith wrong'. I don't see Soldier making atheists a monolithic group in this sense, I have to say.

In the 90s the Brits did a poll on beliefs. One comclsuin was asking if someone belived in god was pointless because of the variety of responses.

One can be atheist ad reject a god, but belevee in a cosmic guiding spirit or force. A higher power.

That's intriguing. That 'belief' in a Guiding force and Higher power needs a little clarification in case of misunderstandings. The question then would be to ask: Does a 'higher power' mean in context to it being some sort of conscious/ intelligent agent? That's what the wording seems to suggest.

A higher power for example, to mean being superior as an intelligent agent compared to humans - unrestricted to all the restraints of human limitations.

Anyway, belief in the HP I suppose, could be argued to be a faith also, not unlike the believers in God - refering to the shade of atheists who belief in the higher power.

Welcome on board I say to them.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Soldier's refusal to say yes or no as to wheher science theories and religious beliefs like creationism are equally valid conclusions is equivocation.

That's not what equivocation is according to the standard definition in the discipline of logic. From Schaum's Outline of Logic, Second Edition, Page 206:

Ambiguity generates fallacies when the meaning of an expression shifts during the course of an argument, causing a misleading appearance of validity.

So please correct your misunderstanding of equivocation and stop libeling me.